What does this say of Walmart’s corporate image? Granted, they provide employment for many, but is this open acceptance of the working poor among its own ranks an indictment of the company?

Is it fair to work everyday and still fall below the poverty line or should these Ohio workers simply be thankful to have a job even if it leaves them vulnerable and dependent? Similar questions I’ve seen debated about outsourced labor in Bangladesh or China…

What does this say of Walmart’s corporate image? Granted, they provide employment for many, but is this open acceptance of the working poor among its own ranks an indictment of the company?

Is it fair to work everyday and still fall below the poverty line or should these Ohio workers simply be thankful to have a job even if it leaves them vulnerable and dependent? Similar questions I’ve seen debated about outsourced labor in Bangladesh or China…

When I worked at Walmart, there were quite a few employees who were disabled or retired. So I could see collecting food and such to help them out. But, what I’m wondering is where Walmart thinks their employees can afford to help out other employees. Most of their employees can barely afford to feed themselves let alone help feed others too.

I guess it would be better if Wal-Mart didn’t exist. Oh! Wait! Where would Wal-Mart employees work. :banghead:

Perhaps at the other stores that would be there instead. Or maybe at the clothing factories that might open if huge imports from China, India, etc weren’t flooding the US market.

I do think its unlikely that other Walmart employees are able to support their coworkers. It would be great if the corporate office (or the officers) would arrange bonuses or thanksgiving baskets for their needy employees.

Perhaps at the other stores that would be there instead. Or maybe at the clothing factories that might open if huge imports from China, India, etc weren’t flooding the US market.

I do think its unlikely that other Walmart employees are able to support their coworkers. It would be great if the corporate office (or the officers) would arrange bonuses or thanksgiving baskets for their needy employees.

So true!! Perhaps we aren’t saying that Walmart shouldn’t exist, but rather, they should pay their employees fairly.

The only reason this is controversial is because Wal-Mart has come under fire lately by those who don’t think they pay a “fair” wage, whatever that means.

A lot of companies do this. Wal-Mart has clearly stated that it is for employees going through a financial hardship. For example, the store referenced in the article said that one of their employees stopped receiving child support. Is that Wal-Mart’s fault? No. But they wanted to make sure her kids have a good meal on Thanksgiving.

I worked at a company that did this. The employees there were unionized, made $18 an hour and got great benefits. Does that mean that company didn’t pay a “fair” wage?

Perhaps at the other stores that would be there instead. Or maybe at the clothing factories that might open if huge imports from China, India, etc weren’t flooding the US market.

Yeah, and those goods would cost 2 to 4 times as much as they do now. Probably more. What would happen to the Chinese and Indians if those factories closed down? They would be much worse off then they are now.

So true!! Perhaps we aren’t saying that Walmart shouldn’t exist, but rather, they should pay their employees fairly.

What is a “fair” wage? Who decides what “fair” is? Is $10 an hour fair? $15? $20?

In a free market system, wage rates are decided through the market, and are based on productivity. Wal-Mart jobs are not skilled labor. Period. Their wage reflects that. If you don’t think that’s fair then you would have to change the way we distribute goods and services in this country. Economic theory has shown that the price mechanism is the best way to distribute scarce resources and coordinate billions of people across the globe.

What is a “fair” wage? Who decides what “fair” is? Is $10 an hour fair? $15? $20?

In a free market system, wage rates are decided through the market, and are based on productivity. Wal-Mart jobs are not skilled labor. Period. Their wage reflects that. If you don’t think that’s fair then you would have to change the way we distribute goods and services in this country. Economic theory has shown that the price mechanism is the best way to distribute scarce resources and coordinate billions of people across the globe.

If you need to receive food stamps despite having a job, then you are not being paid a fair wage (i.e. living wage). Companies have the responsibility to pay their worker a living wage. Are people really okay with the government essentially subsidizing Wall Mart?

Work was created for people. Thinking that people were created for work is an error.

Where would those employees work? At one of the thousands and thousands of small retailers that WM has put out of business perhaps?

I heard today that the six Walton heirs together have more assets that the bottom 40% of the population of the entire country. That’s far from an equitable distribution of wealth. They pay their employees so poorly that many of them qualify for food stamps and Medicaid. Thus the U. S. taxpayer winds up footing the bill so the Waltons
can make even more billions.

Higher prices? If WM took JUST the billions they use for stock buy-backs, they could give every employee a $6/hour raise without raising prices a penny. That would almost double their pay. Having that much money pumped back into the economy would create thousands of jobs as well as alleviate some of the burden on the rest of us tax-payers, who, unlike the Waltons, have earned income rather than capital gains and so have much higher tax rates.

Whatever happened to the idea of social justice and the responsibility to pay a just wage? Their pay may be legal (if all of their employment practices are not) but it is not ethical or moral.

And it’s destructive to the country as a whole. A poor person today has a much better chance of pulling himself out of poverty in many other countries than he does in the U. S. If that’s not a recipe for social unrest and upheaval, I don’t know what is.

If you need to receive food stamps despite having a job, then you are not being paid a fair wage (i.e. living wage). Companies have the responsibility to pay their worker a living wage. Are people really okay with the government essentially subsidizing Wall Mart?

Work was created for people. Thinking that people were created for work is an error.

So we should require that a married man with a child be paid more for the same job as a single man?

Where would those employees work? At one of the thousands and thousands of small retailers that WM has put out of business perhaps?

I heard today that the six Walton heirs together have more assets that the bottom 40% of the population of the entire country. That’s far from an equitable distribution of wealth. They pay their employees so poorly that many of them qualify for food stamps and Medicaid. Thus the U. S. taxpayer winds up footing the bill so the Waltons
can make even more billions.

Higher prices? If WM took JUST the billions they use for stock buy-backs, they could give every employee a $6/hour raise without raising prices a penny. That would almost double their pay. Having that much money pumped back into the economy would create thousands of jobs as well as alleviate some of the burden on the rest of us tax-payers, who, unlike the Waltons, have earned income rather than capital gains and so have much higher tax rates.

**Whatever happened to the idea of social justice and the responsibility to pay a just wage? **Their pay may be legal (if all of their employment practices are not) but it is not ethical or moral.

And it’s destructive to the country as a whole. A poor person today has a much better chance of pulling himself out of poverty in many other countries than he does in the U. S. If that’s not a recipe for social unrest and upheaval, I don’t know what is.

Sorry, but although I’ve been taught that social justice is a teaching of the Catholic Church, I must have been absent the day they taught that “Rugged Individualism” (whatever that is) was also one of her teachings.

I see it as a bad thing, sorry if it seemed as if I agree with the philosophy. It’s libertarian thinking. I also call it boot strap philosopy (if your down pick yourself up by your boot straps). I believe Benedict spoke out against it.

I see it as a bad thing, sorry if it seemed as if I agree with the philosophy. It’s libertarian thinking. I also call it boot strap philosopy (if your down pick yourself up by your boot straps). I believe Benedict spoke out against it.

He spoke out against an extreme paradigm. Please don’t assume that all bootstrap mentalities are the same, or that people here advocate the extreme versions of them.